Hi, Dave, Jeff, et al., I was looking for the BFD WG liaison to BBF and its response. I appreciate it if you help me to find out what was the BBF response, as the draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo is in the WG LC.
Thank you in advance. Regards, Greg On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 10:05 AM David Sinicrope <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Jeff, (Sorry for bouncing around email addresses on you… IT challenges > this week) > > Thanks for clarifying the assertion concerning BBF interest. Still, given > the statement in the adoption call and the clear references to TR-146 in > the draft, it would be a good idea to liaise to BBF, even if brief, and let > them know of the draft and its relation to TR-146. It certainly couldn’t > hurt to have open communication with them on the subject. > > Regarding your check with the IESG on the liaison - please proceed as you > deem appropriate. I will say, (and apologies if I’m stating well known > details) that typically liaisons don’t need IESG approval. They are > normally crafted/drafted by the WG Chairs, and have some level of review > and approval by the WG(s) in question or impacted. > > I hope this helps find the most expeditious and effective way to proceed. > Thanks, > Dave > > On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 12:38 Jeffrey Haas <[email protected]> wrote: > >> David, >> >> On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 05:18:38PM +0000, David Sinicrope wrote: >> > Sorry, I don't recall our discussion, but then it would have been as >> long ago as Singapore in Nov 2019 or before. >> > (Is it possible you spoke with Dave Allan?) >> >> That's possible! As I noted in the thread, my notes from that lunch are >> missing. (I have strong words for Microsoft about their support for Mac >> mail, but that's a different story.) Whomever I had a conversation with >> it >> was in a subterranean warren of lunch venues. Perhaps that will jar >> someone's memory of the venue. >> >> If you have contact info for Dave Allen I can certainly followup with him. >> >> > I can say as the BBF Liaison Manager there have been many past claims of >> > BBF interest in IETF work without substantiation. As a result, it has >> > been key to ensure that any statement of BBF interest in IETF work, >> > especially if made to encourage action in the IETF, be formally >> supported >> > via a liaison. Searching the Liaison Statements in >> > Datatracker<https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/>, I don't see a >> liaison >> > from either the BBF or IETF related to this work. >> >> Please note that I don't believe we're asserting that BBF is interested in >> IETF in doing this work for BBF. And perhaps the easiest answer we'll >> converge to is "remove all mention of BBF". >> >> That said, throughout the discussion that lead to this draft, it was >> pointed >> out to the original authors that they were largely covering the TR-146 use >> case. Minimally, making sure we have a BBF statement regarding the IETF >> work may make sense. >> >> > Also, to the best of my knowledge, the issues that this draft addresses >> > have not been raised in BBF. E.g., a proposal for revision to TR-146 or >> > related documents. >> >> I am not a participant in BBF and have no knowledge of any such >> communications one way or the other. Informally, the discussions I have >> been involved in both with the BFD draft in question and in prior contexts >> at my employer have mostly been that the BBF procedures are somewhat >> inspecific and cleaner documented procedures for the use case are desired. >> >> > Given the stated overlap and application of the draft to TR-146 (in the >> adoption call), >> [...] >> > I would suggest that a liaison be crafted and sent to the BBF formally >> > notifying them of this work and inquiring as to the interest in the >> > content of the draft. Fortunately, the next BBF meeting where such a >> > liaison would be addressed and responded to is 29 Nov - 3 Dec 2021. The >> > sooner the liaison is sent, the more likely a timely response coming out >> > of this upcoming meeting. >> >> I think we could make such a deadline. I'll start discussion with our AD >> to >> see what the IESG will want for the liaison statement. >> >> Meanwhile, I'll see if I can contact Dave Allen to try to get >> clarification >> of what we discussed over lunch - if it was him. >> >> -- Jeff >> > -- > David Sinicrope > [email protected] >
